2025-2026 Tigers Off Season Thread

[papalawrence]

I can see Gleyber taking the QO. He likes it in Detroit and would have a chance at building a stronger case for a longer deal. He turns 29 next month. 

[papalawrence]

12 minutes ago, lordstanley said:

Neato.

 

That's cool! Wasn't aware that Al Simmons was in that Tigers squad

[Sports_Freak]

53 minutes ago, papalawrence said:

I can see Gleyber taking the QO. He likes it in Detroit and would have a chance at building a stronger case for a longer deal. He turns 29 next month. 

I don't know. He came here on a one year deal to try to have a good season so he would get some long term offers. At 29, he may not get as many years if he plays another season. If he turns it down and doesn't get any offers, he could always sign a one year deal at that point. But he was an All Star, I would be kinda surprised if he isnt offered a long term deal. 

[4hzglory]

4 minutes ago, Sports_Freak said:

I don't know. He came here on a one year deal to try to have a good season so he would get some long term offers. At 29, he may not get as many years if he plays another season. If he turns it down and doesn't get any offers, he could always sign a one year deal at that point. But he was an All Star, I would be kinda surprised if he isnt offered a long term deal. 

With the QO attached, it could be an issue for him.  With no QO, I think he definitely gets at least 3 yes 45-50 mil.  It will be interesting to see what he does.

[lordstanley]

58 minutes ago, papalawrence said:

That's cool! Wasn't aware that Al Simmons was in that Tigers squad

He played the 1936 season for the Tigers after being bought from the White Sox for $75,000. 

“Simmons showed he was still a force to be reckoned with, batting .327 with 13 home runs, 38 doubles, 96 runs scored, and 112 RBIs”.

https://www.vintagedetroit.com/when-tigers-got-al-simmons-another-world-series-title-seemed-likely/?srsltid=AfmBOoq6XV6ItgWK8eK5LD4sUkL_v3bhMu23N1szWjr03S1rxKg8_Q7F

[Sports_Freak]

7 minutes ago, 4hzglory said:

With the QO attached, it could be an issue for him.  With no QO, I think he definitely gets at least 3 yes 45-50 mil.  It will be interesting to see what he does.

The draft pick involved comes from the club signing him? If so, it sounds like a good deal. Torres for a draft pick. I would make that deal any day. 

[papalawrence]

1 hour ago, Sports_Freak said:

The draft pick involved comes from the club signing him? If so, it sounds like a good deal. Torres for a draft pick. I would make that deal any day. 

Of course Detroit would like that. Question is, will a team be willing to give him an offer, knowing they will forfeit a draft pick?

[Tigermojo]

Every writer on mlbtraderumors predicts Torres will accept the QO.

[Sports_Freak]

1 hour ago, papalawrence said:

Of course Detroit would like that. Question is, will a team be willing to give him an offer, knowing they will forfeit a draft pick?

Would you want the Tigers to sign him if it meant giving up a draft pick? I sure would. That should never be a reason to pass on an established player, IMO.

[papalawrence]

15 minutes ago, Sports_Freak said:

Would you want the Tigers to sign him if it meant giving up a draft pick? I sure would. That should never be a reason to pass on an established player, IMO.

Given Torres' diminished production post all-star game, teams may be hesitant, and the draft pick absolutely could play a role in a team's decision to make an offer or not. If a team loves him, it won't. 

[gehringer_2]

3 hours ago, Tigermojo said:

Every writer on mlbtraderumors predicts Torres will accept the QO.

I think they may be right.

[4hzglory]

10 hours ago, Sports_Freak said:

The draft pick involved comes from the club signing him? If so, it sounds like a good deal. Torres for a draft pick. I would make that deal any day. 

It doesn’t come directly from them, but they  lose a pick.  Depending on what their luxury tax status/revenue sharing status is, determines which round of a pick(and if they lose 2)they lose and if they also lose International signing bonus money.

 

Depending on what he would sign for, we get either a pick after the 1st round (if his total deal is over $50 mil) or after the 2nd round(if it’s under $50 mil)

[4hzglory]

7 hours ago, papalawrence said:

Given Torres' diminished production post all-star game, teams may be hesitant, and the draft pick absolutely could play a role in a team's decision to make an offer or not. If a team loves him, it won't. 

It’s usually the players like Torres who see their offers diminished the most by a QO.  It obviously isn’t going to affect Tucker/Bregman/Bichette

[Tenacious D]

Agree that the QO diminishes his free agency.  He’ll take the raise for a year.

[Tiger337]

10 hours ago, Tigermojo said:

Every writer on mlbtraderumors predicts Torres will accept the QO.

I think he will.  I hope he does, because I fear they won't be able to replace him if he leaves.  Getting Flaherty and Torres for one year might be ideal since I expect them both of them to be worth the money next year, but they aren't the types of players I want tied up in long-term deals.  

Edited 18 hours ago by Tiger337

[Tiger337]

4 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

I think he will.  I hope he does, because I fear they won't be able to replace him if he leaves.  Getting Flaherty and Torres for one year might be ideal since I expect them both of them to be worth the money next year, but they aren't the types of players I want tied up in long-term deals.  

Expect might be too strong a word here...I mean expect in the statistical sense: the average of all possible outcomes (projected value) will be worth it.  

[chasfh]

14 minutes ago, Tenacious D said:

Agree that the QO diminishes his free agency.  He’ll take the raise for a year.

Perhaps another thing that will diminish everyone’s free agency is the impending lockout. Will teams commit money and future years to players when they don’t know what the landscape is going to look like?

[chasfh]

10 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

I think he will.  I hope he does, because I fear they won't be able to replace him if he leaves.  Getting Flaherty and Torres for one year might be ideal since I expect them both of them to be worth the money next year, but they aren't the types of players I want tied up in long-term deals.  

Another reason not to lock up Torres to years is all the potential second basemen we expect to come up in the next couple years.

[Tiger337]

10 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Another reason not to lock up Torres to years is all the potential second basemen we expect to come up in the next couple years.

That's not something I'd worry about with Bichette, but it would be a consideration with Torres.    

[chasfh]

5 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

That's not something I'd worry about with Bichette, but it would be a consideration with Torres.    

It might be something Bichette and other long term candidates worry about. They might not want to hamstring their future earnings with a pre-stoppage deal if the resulting deal substantially favors Players. Might we see a lot of high-dollar one-year contracts this winter for guys who would normally get a bunch of years? Something like that would open up the market to a lot more teams, particularly us.

Edited 18 hours ago by chasfh

[4hzglory]

15 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

That's not something I'd worry about with Bichette, but it would be a consideration with Torres.    

I agree.  I’d sign Bichette long term and worry about any logjam later.  Torres I love for a year, but more than that would be iffy.

[Tiger337]

10 minutes ago, chasfh said:

It might be something Bichette and other long term candidates worry about. They might not want to hamstring their future earnings with a pre-stoppage deal if the resulting deal substantially favors Players. Might we see a lot of high-dollar one-year contracts this winter for guys who would normally get a bunch of years? Something like that would open up the market to a lot more teams, particularly us.

That could be true, although the Tigers being able to sign players to one year contracts because of no baseball in 2027 would probably be more depressing to me than exciting. 

[chasfh]

Hypothetical question: who would benefit more from a conditional long-term deal that voids if there is a work stoppage? Suppose a team signs Bichette to, let’s say, 5/150. Could there/would there be any condition within which stipulates that in the event of a stoppage, the deal is void? I could see either side benefitting from that depending on what first year comp would be. If it’s front-loaded in Year One, that benefits Bichette by giving him more money and setting a higher market for him next time; if it’s flat or back-loaded, that helps the team more by preserving assets for a long “winter”.

Flip side, if Bichette were to agree to a front-loaded contract—say, 40/30/30/25/25—that would peg his final market at age 34 to the lower number than to the average or higher number.

Would the parties agree to a one-time payout if there is a work stoppage? Say, if the team insists on a flat 30 every year, would Bichette demand, say, a $5 or $10 million payout if there’s a stoppage to satisfy his desire for a higher value in year one in case of stoppage and sweeten the pot at the end to sign? Would a team agree to that? Would it even be legal to arrange for such a payout during a work stoppage?

Of course, if there is no work stoppage at all, none of this would matter, but I think everyone in the business is planning for the stoppage.

This idea has just flown into my head so I haven’t been baking it for long, and I’m just throwing it out there if anyone’s interested in picking up this ball. You might not even agree with any of my assumptions.

Edited 17 hours ago by chasfh

[chasfh]

7 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

That could be true, although the Tigers being able to sign players to one year contracts because of no baseball in 2027 would probably be more depressing to me than exciting. 

I agree, I don’t really want to contemplate that either, but it is a strong consideration to plan for. A number of one-year contracts might be beneficial to a team that is loaded at certain positions in their system, such as we are at dirt positions.

[Shades of Deivi Cruz]

5 minutes ago, chasfh said:

 beneficial to a team that is loaded at certain positions in their system, such as we are at dirt positions.

Beneficial to a team that appears to be loaded at certain positions in their system.